Despite child benefit, findings do not support parent delivery of AME + P.

Objective: Primary aims of the proposed protocol are to determine the feasibility/acceptability of the active music engagement intervention protocol during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and clinical feasibility/acceptability of the biological sample collection schedule. Design: The authors propose a single-case, alternating treatment design to compare levels of child and caregiver cortisol in blood and saliva collected on alternating days, when the dyad receives and does not receive AME sessions. Included are the scientific rationale for this design and detailed intervention and sample collection schedules based on transplant type. Setting/Location: Pediatric inpatient HSCT unit. Subjects: Eligible participants are dyads of children 3-8 years old, hospitalized for HSCT, and their caregiver. Children with malignant and nonmalignant conditions will be eligible, regardless of transplant type. Intervention: AME intervention is delivered by a board-certified music therapist who tailors music-based play experiences to encourage active engagement in, and independent use of, music play to manage the interrelated emotional distress experienced by children and their caregivers during HSCT. Dyads will receive two 45-min AME sessions each week during hospitalization. Outcome Measures: Eight collections of blood (child) and saliva (child/caregiver) will be performed for cortisol measurement. The authors will also collect self-report and caregiver proxy measures for dyad emotional distress, quality of life, and family function. At study conclusion, qualitative caregiver interviews will be conducted. Results: Planned analyses will be descriptive and evaluate the feasibility of participant recruitment, cortisol collection, planned evaluations, and AME delivery. Analysis of qualitative interviews will be used to gain an understanding about the ease/burden of biological sample collection and any perceived benefit of AME. Conclusions: Behavioral intervention studies examining biological mechanisms of action in pediatric transplant populations are rare. Findings will provide important information about the feasibility/acceptability

This paper reports the results of a single case design pilot study of a music therapy intervention [the Active Music Engagement (AME)] for young children (age 3.51 to 4.53 years) undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCST) and their caregivers. The primary aims of the study were to determine feasibility/acceptability of the AME intervention protocol and data collection in the context of HCST. Secondary aims were to examine caregivers' perceptions of the benefit of AME and whether there were changes in child and caregiver cortisol levels relative to the AME intervention. Results indicated that the AME could be implemented in this context and that data could be collected, though the collection of salivary cortisol may constitute an additional burden for families. Nevertheless, data that were collected suggest that families derive benefit from the AME, which underscores the need for devising innovative methods to understand the neurophysiological impacts of the AME.

Background: Parents of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer offer primary support to their children and often experience their own high levels of distress, affecting parent-AYA communication and quality of life. Objective: To reduce parent distress and improve communication during high-risk cancer treatment, we examined efficacy of a self-care and communication intervention for parents and indirect benefit for AYAs receiving a therapeutic music video (TMV) intervention. Methods: In this study, we conducted a multisite, randomized controlled trial with AYAs and parents enrolled as dyads (n = 110).Parents were randomized to intervention or low-dose control; all AYAs received TMV.Data collection occurred at baseline, 2 weeks post intervention (T2), and 90 days post intervention (T3). Results: There were no significant between-group differences on primary outcomes for parents or AYAs. We did find significant differences favoring the parent intervention group on parenting confidence at T2 and marginally better outcomes for family adaptability/cohesion at T3. Both groups exhibited significant within-group improvement for parent distress (state anxiety, T3; perceived stress, T2 and T3; mood, T3), state anxiety (T2) intervention only, and family strengths control group only. Qualitative data demonstrate the parent intervention raised self-awareness and parent confidence in the short term. Conclusion:Parents found their intervention helpful. Absence of significant results may be due to short intervention duration, need for tailored content, underpowered sample, and potential indirect parent benefit from AYA participation in TMV. The parent intervention did not provide an indirect benefit for AYAs. Implications for Nursing: Parents identified their own need for communication and support from nurses. Nurses can optimize AYA care by attending to parent needs through supportive listening and encouraging self-care.